Subject: Re: network-manager as default? No!
Date: Wednesday 13th April 2011 09:39:26 UTC (over 6 years ago)
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:11:27AM +0200, sean finney wrote: >Did i miss the part where somebody explained what the user benefit of >having network-manager on a server was? (apart from "then it's the same >as your desktop", anyway). I don’t even know why NM should be on a normal desktop. My first (and last) contact with NM was not a good one. I was doing a remote upgrade of a desktop and suddenly the system was unreachable. After a reboot it worked, but shortly the system was unreachable again. Then I noticed that the default gateway was missing. The desktop didn’t have a configured eth0, but two configured vlan interfaces. NM thought, hey let’s configure eth0, and tried to configure eth0 via DHCP and deleted the default gateway. Since then, the first thing I do is to disable this crap. Besides I don’t have any desktop with WLAN interface. So ifupdown is more than enough to configure the network. Some people say that NM is good with WLAN. Maybe. Since I don’t touch NM again, I always used ifupdown and wpasupplicant with success. But I rarely use WLAN. If NM is really good with WLAN it should only be part of the laptop task and never touch cable networks. The only thing that I miss from ifupdown (and I configured bonds, bridges and vlans) is a good IPv6 support. I can’t separately activate or deactivate IPv4 or IPv6 parts of an interface. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: email@example.com | | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |